Rumoured Hoopla About Oxygenase

5 �� 7; B: 23.9 �� 6; p = 0.025) and in education level (A: 14.0 �� 2, B: 13.4 �� 2, p = 0.044) between scenario ��A�� and ��B�� groups (Table ?Table11). However, Pearson��s correlation analysis showed that CPT threshold and tolerance Oxygenase response sizes were not significantly correlated with either age (r = 0.11, p = 0.25 and r = -0.01, p = 0.88, respectively) or education level (r = -0.12, p = 0.21 and r = -0.11, p = 0.24, respectively). The baseline mean values (in seconds) of CPT threshold and tolerance in men and women are shown in Table ?Table22. We found significantly higher mean threshold for men (20.7 �� 2) relative to women (12.1 �� 1) (t = 3.231, p = 0.002), as well as significantly higher mean tolerance for men (92.9 �� 12) relative to women (49.5 �� 8, p = 0.005). These differences, which were expected based on the literature (Kowalczyk et al., 2006; Sinha and Dubey, 2015) supported our a priori decision to express changes due to placebo and performance style as %change rather than an absolute difference in seconds. Table 2 Baseline pain threshold and tolerance measures across gender. Placebo Response Based on CPT threshold at baseline and after placebo administration, we calculated the response rates and the mean response size in men and women. The response rate was 16% in men and 13% in women (p = 0.80), however, men showed a trend toward a larger response size relative to women (F = 3.60, p = 0.060). When evaluating response rates and the mean response size for CPT selleck inhibitor tolerance, we needed to exclude all subjects who BKM120 held their hand in the ice water for the maximum time (300 s) at baseline and after treatment due to a ceiling effect (N = 33). Using this parameter and population, response rate was 18% in men and only 7% in women (p = 0.21). Men again showed a trend toward a larger response size relative to women (F = 3.57, p = 0.062; Table ?Table22). The number of responders defined as those showing a 30% increase in pain threshold was 7 in scenario A and 11 in scenario B. The difference was not statistically significant. In addition, subjects in scenario B showed a higher mean response size than subjects in scenario A. The number of responders in the tolerance parameter was larger in scenario B (scenario A, N = 3; scenario B, N = 9) but the difference was not statistically significant (��2 = 2.88; p = 0.123). Subjects in scenario B again showed a higher mean response size than subjects in scenario A (Table ?Table33). Table 3 Performance style and placebo response. Next we evaluated the impact of responsiveness and the two performance styles on the placebo response size for CPT threshold. A two-way ANOVA revealed a significant effect of responsiveness (F = 134.71, p